The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council judgment last week that has brought Jamaica’s anti-money laundering/combating of terrorism financing regime into compliance with international standards is a welcomed development.

Essentially, the Privy Council ruled that Jamaica’s anti-money laundering legislation does not contravene constitutional rights, particularly as they relate to attorney-client confidentiality.

Readers will recall that in 2013 Jamaica extended its anti-money laundering regime to include attorneys conducting certain activities, among them purchasing and selling businesses or real estate or creating companies or trusts. The aim was to address national security concerns and comply with international standards in respect of the prevention of money laundering and financing of terrorism.

The regime also gave the General Legal Council (GLC) authority to monitor attorneys’ compliance with the anti-money laundering law via inspections, examining and copying documents, and sharing information with other authorities. Additionally, it required attorneys to disclose suspicious transactions to the Financial Investigations Division (FID).

However, the Jamaican Bar Association challenged the extended regime, arguing that it was unconstitutional on a number of grounds. But the attorney general and the GLC resisted the challenge, which resulted in the Supreme Court ruling that the legislation was lawful. However, when the matter was advanced to the Court of Appeal it ruled that certain aspects of the regime were invalid on the basis that they contravened the constitutional rights to privacy, liberty, and freedom from search of property without demonstrable justification.

Thankfully, the attorney general and the GLC took the matter to the Privy Council and now the dispute over this very important issue is settled.

Of significant note is the fact that the Privy Council, while acknowledging that the anti-money laundering law involves some interference with attorney-client confidentiality, stated clearly that the interference is demonstrably justified.

“There can be no doubt,” the English law lords stated, “that combating money laundering is of first importance to Jamaica.”

In response, Finance Minister Dr Nigel Clarke described the decision is “a game-changer in Jamaica’s efforts to ensure that the financial system is not abused to launder the proceeds of criminal activity”.

He also said the Administration will move quickly to ensure that attorneys fulfil their obligations under the Proceeds of Crime Act as part of the Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions framework.

We are not surprised that the ruling has been welcomed by the FID and other law enforcement agencies. And if the Administration lives up to its vow to amend the constitution, as part of efforts to help speed up investigations related to unexplained wealth, those agencies will definitely encounter fewer hurdles in the execution of their jobs.

The cold, hard fact is that we cannot continue to allow the cleaning of ill-gotten gains and expect the country to pass the corruption smell test.

As one senior executive in the legal profession so succinctly put it in a conversation with this newspaper after the Privy Council ruling: “We live in a crime-infested country, so lawyers and their clients can just suck up this judgment.”